Scanning 8x10s

[Michael Gaillard]

Hello everyone!

I use 8x10 and tend to print at great scale from a digital file, which leads me to drum scan my negs at 1.5 GB or so. Needless to say, this is tremendously costly, and so I tend not to scan at this quality until I am 100% sure I'll be reproducing that work. If I'm not certain of its future, it's very difficult to justify such expense.

This leads me to my first question... I need to produce many 16x20 prints for a high-quality portfolio. I have recently gone on an excursion during which I took at least 50 images that need to be scanned. Even at the lower quality drum scanning cost (to go to 16x20) it would total almost 5000 dollars to scan. I'd rather not spend that, and figured perhaps I could buy some hardware at a far lower cost, and learn how to use it.

1. Should I buy a V850 and oil mount the negs? Would this produce a scan of equal quality than a drum scan that was scanned to 16x20? Are there other options out there that would be superior? I haven't been in this market for a while, so I don't really know what the highest quality technology that isn't at the level of an Aztek/ICG/Creo. Although I need this immediately for this particular project, I also see it as an opportunity to invest in technology that could benefit me long into the future.

2. I have been using a company that uses a Heidelberg for my biggest scans. It produces the most sumptuous scans I've seen. But, it comes at a ridiculous cost. There is another guy in the area who has an Aztek and offers the same size scans for less than half the cost. I've compared the work and while the Aztek does seem quite nice, there's something missing, even though the detail is equivalent. Can anyone describe the distinctions that exist between the Heidelberg and the Aztek? I would save a lot of money if I went with the latter guy, but I'm really happy with the results of the former and am reluctant to change.

Any thoughts on either matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, all!

[Leigh]

Why don't you take a few representative prints and have all of them scanned by each company???

- Leigh

[Alan9940]

The quality question at 16x20 is kind of tough to answer because so much depends on your definition of quality in the prints you produce. I've been scanning 8x10 on a very old Epson Expression 1680 flatbed scanner, wet mounting directly to the bed glass, using Silverfast Ai as my scanning software of choice. Since my printer is an Epson 3880, I've always been happy with the approx 2x enlargements even from this modest scanner. Somewhat recently, I've started generating raw scans and converting in PS using the ColorPerfect plugin, and I've been even more pleased with these results.

I'm sure the Epson V850 is a fine scanner, but it isn't going to come close to the drum scan quality you're used to. The trouble with flatbed style scanners big enough to handle 8x10 is that we have nothing in the middle. We've got Epson hanging on to the lower end (low cost) and scanners like Aztek/Creo/etc pushing the upper end and costing several thousand dollars. I would LOVE to get one of those flatbed scanners that scan using a cross-stitch style pattern vs linear, but I can't afford $8 - $10K for a scanner. So, I convince myself that what I use is good enough for the size prints I make! ;)

Good luck!

[Michael Gaillard]

The quality question at 16x20 is kind of tough to answer because so much depends on your definition of quality in the prints you produce. I've been scanning 8x10 on a very old Epson Expression 1680 flatbed scanner, wet mounting directly to the bed glass, using Silverfast Ai as my scanning software of choice. Since my printer is an Epson 3880, I've always been happy with the approx 2x enlargements even from this modest scanner. Somewhat recently, I've started generating raw scans and converting in PS using the ColorPerfect plugin, and I've been even more pleased with these results.

I'm sure the Epson V850 is a fine scanner, but it isn't going to come close to the drum scan quality you're used to. The trouble with flatbed style scanners big enough to handle 8x10 is that we have nothing in the middle. We've got Epson hanging on to the lower end (low cost) and scanners like Aztek/Creo/etc pushing the upper end and costing several thousand dollars. I would LOVE to get one of those flatbed scanners that scan using a cross-stitch style pattern vs linear, but I can't afford $8 - $10K for a scanner. So, I convince myself that what I use is good enough for the size prints I make! ;)

Good luck!

I understand that quality is subjective, but there is a reason that I shoot 8x10, and that is to achieve a level of precision unmatched by other options. Because that is my goal, I don't want to compromise that by producing something that only matches what would be produced by far less precise methods (not that there is anything wrong with those choices, they just happen not to be mine).

I know that drum scanning is unmatched, but at a smaller scale, most of the benefits are not noticeable when printed. I'm wondering what the best strategy would be to match the quality of a drum scan to 16x20 and printed at that size. I feel as though there are options that would be hard to differentiate. Perhaps that Epson Expression 11000?

[Jim Noel]

Buy a Microtek scanner. I don't know the new model numbers. My old i900 scans negatives by transmission, not reflection like most scanners, and I'm sure the newer ones do likewise.

[Oren Grad]

Perhaps that Epson Expression 11000?

The V700/V750/V800/V850 is as good as you're going to get in a consumer-grade flatbed. The 11000XL is more expensive because of its much larger scanning bed, but the V700 etc do a bit better over the 8x10 field.

I don't think these flatbeds come anywhere near what a competently-operated drum scanner can do, even for a 2x enlargement. (FWIW, I own a V700.) But the standard that matters is yours. Take a negative that you've already had drum scanned, have someone scan it for you on one of the Epson scanners, and compare and decide for yourself.

Jim, all of these Epson scanners scan transparent material via transmission, not reflection. At any rate, Microtek has more or less withdrawn from the US market, retaining only a very limited presence with apparently no retail distribution and limited-to-nonexistent after-sale technical support.

[Alan9940]

I understand that quality is subjective, but there is a reason that I shoot 8x10, and that is to achieve a level of precision unmatched by other options. Because that is my goal, I don't want to compromise that by producing something that only matches what would be produced by far less precise methods (not that there is anything wrong with those choices, they just happen not to be mine).


Well, if you want ultimate quality in large prints you should be shooting MF digital with a 100MP back! :) :) Just kidding...sorta.



I know that drum scanning is unmatched, but at a smaller scale, most of the benefits are not noticeable when printed. I'm wondering what the best strategy would be to match the quality of a drum scan to 16x20 and printed at that size. I feel as though there are options that would be hard to differentiate. Perhaps that Epson Expression 11000?

Nuff said. IMO, drum scanning is the pinnacle (given a good operator) and, as Oren said and I agree, even at 2x enlargement you'll see a visible difference between that and any consumer flatbed scan. Forget the 11000. A friend had one of those many years ago and we compared scan quality between his unit and my Epson 1680 Pro and, at 100% we couldn't see any difference. IIRC the 11000 will allow you to scan up to 11x14 in one go.

Best advice you've already been told. Take a good neg, have it drum scanned, scan it on one of the Epson's you're considering, and then compare.

[Pere Casals]

1. Should I buy a V850 and oil mount the negs?



Dear Michael,

Now I use a V850 with complete satisfaction, as an amateur.

IMHO scanner is a component of a workflow and it should be well integrated in it. So input and output media are the key.


Resolution:

If you print 20" in a 400 ppi machine (Durst Lambda) you must deliver a file that has 8000 pixels wide, to match one single pixel from file for each pixel of the printer. If you don't crop too much don't need a very high resolution scan, a 1200 dpi acomplishes. (note that printer PPI means "pixels per inch", not dots, a pixel can have any gray level)

You perhaps are going to scan at 2400 dpi and then to reduce those 24000 pixels wide to the 8000 pixels wide you may need to deliver (landscape orientation).

You have to deliver, exactly, the same number of points than printer will print, if not quality may suffer.


A V850 has 6400 dpi in theory if scanning until 5.9" wide strips/holders, and 4800 dpi if using area guide for 8x10. The scanner has two lenses, one for each of those situations.

A V850 will deliver 2800 to 2300 dpi true optical performance for 5.9 area. And somewhat less, some true 2000 dpi with the area guide. Perhaps this is more than what you need.

It my opinion there is no need to scan it with more resolution if at the end you are going to reduce image size later.

IMHO, for scanned 8x10, the perceived image quality depends more on the Photoshop edition than on the scanner resolution power. It is important to use the right sharpenning algorithm in every place of the image. For example eyes may need a particular adjustment. Sometimes the image is not sharp because focus or shake...

Also it is very important that in the Image->Image_Size dialog you select "Bicubic Ideal for reductions" at the bottom, it is not the default option.

Adaptative contrast and image enhancing software, like the Instagram "structure" control are key.

Some expensive scanners have hidden internal image processing (sharpenning) that makes them look better, with V850 you do that with PS.



DMax:

V850 it is specified DMax 4.0D, but you need to use bundled SilverMax with multiexposure setting to reach some true 3.4D.

IMHO no flatbed will recover well those very deep Velvia shadows, only a drum will work there, or at least a Hasselblad X5. For color or BW negative film the V850 always do it ok. With Velvia/Provia a drum will recover more extreme deep shadows.



Microcontrast:

A drum will recover a bit more microcontrast than V850, still post software can do a lot more than expensive lenses and scanners, with adaptative contrast algorithms.


Color:

Here to me key is post process software, LUTs and enhancing software. It is true that an scanner can deliver a bit different colors than another one, but at the end there is a calibration wth a IT8 target that make things match.


Suggestion:

I'd suggest that you take some 35mm rolls of the films you use, make bracketings, and scan it in high end scanners and with a V850. Then edit in PS to get mostly the same. And then judge.

If you don't see much difference... then the V850 looks for free compared with other options.

Sure than for 135 a dedicated roll film scannes is a better option than V850, but IMHO with MF and sheets it has resolution in excess. Single issue to me is very dark slides, where we want the shadows back.


I've been editing images of an artist and sometimes I had drum scans side by side with V850 scanners, I concluded that most of the times it's more a question of postprocess skills than of hardware, but sometimes there is an slide than needs a drum job.


Also I found that scan service normally also includes some image enhancing postprocess, and they don't say it.



Regards.

PD: Note that V800 normally do not include a silverfast version that can make multiexposure, V850 should.

[Michael Gaillard]

Thanks, everyone. I think I have what I need.

[Peter De Smidt]

What are you scanning: slides, color negatives, bw film? For slides, especially for Velvia, use a drum scanner. For the other media, flat beds (or dslr scanners) are viable.

[vinny]

v750 will be fine for your needs. I own two drum scanners and a v750 and have made plenty of 16x20's from both machines and 8x10 film. While the v750 doesn't scan chromes as well as the drum scanner, it does a decent job. With b+w film, the quality from the v750 and 8x10 film is pretty damn good for 16x20's. And no, I don't wet mount my epson scans.

[Jim Andrada]

I just upgraded from a 750 to an IQsmart 2. It's a big piece of gear, and I love it. Results are way better than anything I could get from the 750. I looked into drum scanning but decided that the tradeoff between ease of use and quality didn't justify getting a drum scanner. I feel like I got a reasonable compromise with the IQsmart2. And it was nowhere near as expensive as $8k. I bought it from Genesis and it came with all the software and a parts warranty and outstanding support that was really helpful in getting me started with the software.

I always wet mounted with the 750 and for what it is, it's hard to complain about it. I shoot mostly 4 x 5 and 5 x 7 so I can use the wet mount kit. Everybody makes a big deal about how hard it is to wet mount but I average somewhere around 23 seconds to get a good wet mount, so it's not as bad as a lot of people say.

[Michael Gaillard]

What are you scanning: slides, color negatives, bw film? For slides, especially for Velvia, use a drum scanner. For the other media, flat beds (or dslr scanners) are viable.

I'm scanning Portra 160.

[dodphotography]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161102/04464133face18f59ddc7518ad304be6.jpg

I had a frame custom made at a local metal shop, it was water cut. It sits 1mm above the platen, works for me.

I prefer a wet print though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[koraks]

I scan my 8x10s on an Epson 4990 flatbed and digital print to ca. 16x20" from time to time. The quality is good enough for my purposes. When I print at this size, the purpose is not to look at it with my nose pressed to the print. If you need tack sharp rendition that stands up to being viewed at very close distance or even with a loupe, then you may prefer drum scans or optical enlargement. I couldn't justify the cost personally though, but photography is a hobby to me.

In short: this is one of those questions for which the answer is really personal.

[dodphotography]

I scan my 8x10s on an Epson 4990 flatbed and digital print to ca. 16x20" from time to time. The quality is good enough for my purposes. When I print at this size, the purpose is not to look at it with my nose pressed to the print. If you need tack sharp rendition that stands up to being viewed at very close distance or even with a loupe, then you may prefer drum scans or optical enlargement. I couldn't justify the cost personally though, but photography is a hobby to me.

In short: this is one of those questions for which the answer is really personal.

Agree on the personal aspect... at the end of the day we need to love what we do.

Also, when you think about things in absolute terms of right and wrong you realize how many of our heros and champions were helped along the way, had access to knowledge and people we will never have, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrTang]

ahhhh - the tequila conumdrum

cheap tequila is fine...until you get a glass of the expensive stuff

now only the good stuff will do

[dodphotography]

But a drum scan is only as good as the scanner themselves... seen plenty of crap drum scans. It's an art, people sometimes overlook that aspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

You mention you need this immediately, but can you find a local V700 or better to just test it out? I know local libraries and schools often have scanners you can use, and then you'll know if the quality is where you need it to be.

If you aren't used to scanning or digital processing, getting the color correct (or to taste) from your negative film may be more difficult than you expect.

BTW, where are you located?

[j.e.simmons]

The wet scan adapter I received with my V750 is not large enough for 8x10. I had to improvise with a couple of pieces of picture frame glass.

[Jim Andrada]

The largest you can scan with the wet mount adapter and the better lens is about 5" in width. 8 x 10 usually goes on the scanner glass. I think practically you'll get 1300 DPI or so for 8 x 10.

[Marsh S]

When scanning color prints at scan resolutions above 300 dpi, then, it follows that you are scanning not for detail but for size---you are essentially upsampling via the scan rather than later via Photoshop or some other image editor. If you do not intend to enlarge the original, there is no point in scanning above 300 dpi and you ought not to do so to avoid needlessly large files. If you do enlarge after scanning at 300 dpi, upsampling will give as good a result as having scanned at a higher resolution.

[Marsh S]

If the scanner is lined up so scanner-pixel 1 hits print-pixel 1 dead on, you are perfectly lined up and the scan is as good as the original.

If the scanner and photo are off just 1/100 of a pixel (!?!) then scanner pixel 1 gets pixel 1 and a shade of pixel 2. If pixel one is pure white (255,255,255) and pixel 2 is black (0,0,0) then the scanned pixel is something like (200,200,200)(mean, average, etc.) which means you lost the original pure white.

[Pere Casals]

The largest you can scan with the wet mount adapter and the better lens is about 5" in width. 8 x 10 usually goes on the scanner glass. I think practically you'll get 1300 DPI or so for 8 x 10.

I'd say, for 8x10 with the worse lens, some 1500 to 1800, depending on the axis. The better lens scans 5.9", enough for two 120 strips on holder or four 35mm strips...

The better lens with a native 6400 dpi delivers some 2300 to 2800 (best of 5 results) optical performance, also depending on the axis.